By Dr Alieu SK Manjang
As the 2026 presidential election approaches, individuals and organisations are increasingly emerging to mobilise opposition parties into forming a coalition against President Barrow’s NPP. However, the discourse promoted by some of these actors—both political parties and civil society groups—is shaped by two narratives that, in my view, are likely to undermine any serious effort at coalition building.
The first narrative is the claim that there is no “bigger” political party and that no single party can win the election on its own. This is often reinforced by the argument that parties must set aside individual and partisan interests.
While it may be reasonable to argue that no single opposition party can defeat the NPP alone, it is a logical fallacy to rely on recent ward-level election results to support this claim, as such elections are influenced by unique local dynamics and demographic realities specific to those wards.
Similarly, the assertion that there is no dominant political party in the country is a clear distortion of political reality.
Apparently, the problem is that these organisations and individuals advocating for a coalition are themselves guilty of what they indirectly accuse certain political actors of doing. Coalitions are formed to maximise the chances of effecting change, and they must be grounded in political realities on the ground. The comparative advantage of any party to lead a coalition should be assessed based on measurable strengths, such as past electoral performance, grassroots support, and financial capacity.
Among the opposition, it is not difficult to identify which party is best positioned to lead. This approach aligns with established political theory and practice, not only in Africa but across the world. Political realities cannot be dictated or artificially imposed in an attempt to manufacture convergence. Leadership within a coalition must be determined by measurable factors, not ideology or political myths.
Unfortunately, Gambians often seek to be “unique” at all costs, and President Barrow himself, along with the current political situation, is a product of this same refusal to acknowledge reality.
While many advocate placing national interest above individual or partisan interests, few appear willing to apply the same principle by accepting political reality. How can a party that has never won a seat in local elections, or has never even contested an election at the ward level, present itself on equal footing with well-established parties that command hundreds of thousands of supporters both within The Gambia and in the diaspora, and that have a proven record as the most formidable challengers to ruling parties?
What is so difficult about rallying behind the largest party, measured by objective criteria such as votes won and seats secured in previous elections, grassroots support, organisational strength, and financial capacity, to lead a coalition? The burden of compromise should not fall on that party, but rather on those who seek to defy established norms of pre-election coalition building, both in theory and in practice.
Let those individuals and civil society organisations provide concrete examples of how their approach, particularly the attempt to impose new political realities regarding coalition leadership, has worked elsewhere. Unless they recognise political realities, respect the status of established parties, and set aside personal egos, no viable coalition against President Barrow will emerge. Those who reject practices proven elsewhere, including in Senegal, should bear responsibility, not the parties that feel devalued despite being the largest and most established.
